Those Wordy Contracts We All So Quickly Accept

THIS past month I’ve been agreeing to contracts like crazy. I clicked “yes” on Verizon’s terms and conditions when I paid my bill; ditto on iTunes when I was installing it on my computer. I even signed a waiver agreeing not to sue a white-water rafting company if anything went wrong when I spent a day on the Hudson.

Of course, this is nothing unusual. Most of us do similar things almost every day, largely without thinking about it.

“We’re routinely giving up our right to sue,” said Margaret Radin, professor of law at the University of Michigan and author of “Boilerplate: The Fine Print, Vanishing Rights and the Rule of Law.” “As a society we accept this as the price of doing business,” Professor Radin said.

Boilerplate contracts — which mean they contain standardized language, often in fine print — can apply in many different circumstances. But consumers typically come across some more than others, like the terms and agreements we click on when buying or using something online, and waivers, like the one I signed for the white-water rafting adventure.

First, about online contracts. If you’re beating yourself up for not reading them, don’t. Almost no one does. James Gibson, a professor of law at the University of Richmond, looked at contracts consumers needed to agree to — by clicking on them — to get software running for computers bought from four major sellers.

All the contracts, he said, “were an average of 74,000-plus words, which is basically the length of the first Harry Potter book.”

Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, a professor of law at New York University, has gone a step further and actually read contracts and privacy policies. Her findings: They don’t vary much from one another, even in competitive marketplaces, and, not surprisingly, they tend to benefit the seller.

She has also tracked how many consumers actually click on online contracts and spend more than one second there.

“It’s one in one thousand,” she said.

So online contracts are long and dense and basically no one reads or understands them. But, they serve a purpose, says Jessica R. Friedman, a lawyer who writes such contracts.

“The company is trying to limit its exposure” to lawsuits, she said. “There’s a tendency to think ‘big bad company and poor consumer,’ but there’s a lot of crazy people out there, and consumers who have unrealistic expectations. The contracts are a way to reach lots of people and protect yourself.”

Ms. Friedman admits that even she doesn’t read the terms of agreement for everything she buys online, even though she writes them. But, she said, if you’re spending a lot, you should.

Know the return policy. Know if there is a restocking fee. And understand that when you click on the little box that says you agree to these terms, it has some meaning.

“If I’m going to get a great deal on a ski jacket, but the terms say I need to return within 30 days and it’s July, so I’m not going to ski for six months, I need to know that,” she said.

And even though virtually everyone agrees that the idea of mutual consent with these types of contracts is a fiction, not all agree the system should be changed.

“I’m not someone who wags his finger and says you should read them,” said Douglas G. Baird, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. “If you read them, you don’t have a very interesting or productive life.”

But, he said, boilerplate contracts, in many cases, are just part of the many features that come when you buy a product. “They are a way a manufacturer has to connect the terms to the product,” he said, and absent a good alternative, our current system works pretty well.

“There are plenty of victims of boilerplates,” Professor Baird said, but wrongdoing is less likely to occur in the mass market than in specialized markets, such as those who take on payday loans or rent to own. That, he said, is where we should focus our concern.

Of course, many disagree with Professor Baird.

“Businesses used to be held responsible for negligent practices as a matter of public policy.” Professor Radin said. “Some businesses still act responsibly, but many do not. Boilerplate makes a mockery of traditional, mutually negotiated contractual terms.”

She said there were several areas she was particularly worried about that were common in many boilerplates. These include:

■ Not allowing class-action lawsuits.

■ Making arbitration the only way consumers can seek relief.

■ Putting in indemnity clauses so consumers have to pay the company’s legal costs if they lose.

■ Specifying a choice of forum, meaning consumers have to go to a certain state or country if you want to sue.

A good place to learn about what specific contract provisions mean is the Web site faircontracts.org.

Apart from education, there’s little individual consumers can do. The best thing, Professor Radin said, is to work to change public policy.

Some groups are working to make these types of boilerplate contracts more protective of consumers, such as the ones required by the European Union. For example, Professor Marotta-Wurgler said, in Europe, when making an online purchase, consumers had the right to cancel the contract.

At a minimum, advocates say, the contracts should be easier for consumers to parse by highlighting important terms. The federal government is currently putting out a prototype of a simpler, clearer credit card agreement that companies could use. Faircontracts.org suggests ways to lobby for such changes.

Now to other types of boilerplate contracts: those used by cruise ships, for example, which have been in the news lately for various misadventures.

Many passengers are surprised to discover that their rights were severely restricted by the contract they agreed to simply by buying their tickets, said James M. Walker, a longtime maritime lawyer who represents clients suing cruise lines.

The choice-of-forum clause is especially tricky, he said. “You have to file suit in the location specified on the contract on your ticket.” Most American cruise lines specify Miami, so if you live in Oregon and took the cruise out of Los Angeles to Mexico, you still have to be prepared to go to Miami if you plan to sue.

There’s no point in shopping around, because all the terms are similar from company to company, Mr. Walker said. His best advice? Buy travel insurance and make sure it covers everything from lost luggage to medical evacuation by helicopter.

“So many people call us and tell us they were treated badly on a cruise and 90 percent of the time we have to tell them that because of the terms and conditions of the contract, they don’t have a case,” Mr. Walker said.

What about those waivers we’ve all signed for activities as dangerous as bungee jumping or as mild as ear piercing? I signed the white-water rafting waiver without thinking about it and when I went back to look at it while writing this story, I realized I agreed not to hold the company responsible for anything — including negligence on their part.

Luckily we all survived. But the lesson is twofold — take those waivers seriously. If you really don’t like something, ask if you can cross it out. It’s up to the company to say yes or no.

If something terrible does happen, don’t assume that because you signed a waiver, you have no recourse. Courts are all over the place in rulings on such waivers. It depends on state law, the situation and the contract.

As Professor Marotta-Wurgler said, most people are unlikely to change their behavior because of what’s in these contracts. “For the most part it doesn’t matter,” she said. “Things don’t usually go wrong — except when they do. And then it matters.”

E-mail: shortcuts@nytimes.com

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B6 of the New York edition with the headline: Those Wordy Contracts We All So Quickly Accept. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe